ed in the depths of the sea," as forcing us to the inference, that it were a blessing to the "intellectual system" at large, if every individual of our race were actually subjected to that process.

Such is the extraordinary climax of the reviewer's arguments to prove that Dr. Bellamy's hypothesis respecting the permission of sin is essentially the same with that which he is himself endeavoring to maintain.

It is thus not only abundantly apparent that he has not succeeded in establishing any such identity as he claims of his own and the views of Dr. Bellamy, and that all his arguments without exception, for the purpose, are false alike in their premise, proof, and conclusion, and fraught with inconcealable and flagrant inconsistencies with each other, and violence to all established and safe laws of interpretation and logic to a degree that has scarcely a parallel in the annals of controversy; but it is equally clear, that no "acuteness," nor "gigantic strength" "of mind," can ever render his attempt successful; inasmuch as the views of Dr. Bellamy on every principal branch of the subject,―expressed with the utmost clearness, made the foundation of his reasoning, and wrought into the whole fabric of his discussion,-are diametrically the converse of those which the reviewer imputes to him, and himself entertains.

The renewal by this gentleman of these attempts to sustain his peculiar views by the authority of "respectable theological writers of New-England"-unless it has become a matter of general conviction that his opinions are not entitled to any respect, and thence of certainty that they cannot exert any influence—is adapted to excite apprehension as well as surprise and regret. Of the object of these repeated and zealous efforts, but one judgment can be formed,—

that it is simply to persuade the public, that the contested dogmas, which he has of late made it his chief business to promulgate, are not such errors as they are generally regarded, but have long been the prevalent doctrines of the churches of New-England, and are among the most distinguishing articles of the theological systems of Edwards, Bellamy, and Dwight; and thereby to supply the want of proofs, with names, to evince their truth; and employ the shield of authority, in place of reason and revelation, to rebut the "objections" with which he finds himself assailed.

Of the character, in like manner, of these efforts, but one impression can exist,—that they exhibit a singular absence of the endowments, principles, and accomplishments which become a station like his, and are indispensable indeed to the humblest order of those who aspire to instruct or influence the general mind;—clear apprehensions, sound logic, consistency, fairness, justice to the reputation of those whose doctrines he undertakes to expound, and respect for the discernment, integrity, and independence of his readers. No one, I venture to believe, of the least capability to form a just judgment on the subject, who looks with impartiality into this, and his former efforts of the kind, can fail to be struck with amazement at the open and perpetual disregard by which they are marked-whether intentionally, or through inadvertence, it is neither my business to determine nor conjecture,-of the clearest truths, and flagrant misrepresentations of the most incontrovertible and palpable facts; nor resist the conviction, that if the principles and methods which characterize his discussions, are legitimate, there is an end at once, so far at least as men are concerned, to the claims of evidence and the sanctions of religion;-that no pretences can be too false or absurd,

not to be successfully vindicated, nor any cause ever become hopeless, but that of truth.

And against the continuance of these endeavors, and extension to other doctrines and writers, as he may broach other novelties, or need the aid of additional authority, it is obvious that no guarantee whatever is furnished, either by the views by which he has hitherto shown himself to be governed, nor by any such manifestations of his error, or expressions of disapproval, as have been conveyed to him by others. What new dogma he may not yet claim to have found lurking in the temple of orthodoxy, or under the sanction of what other name he may not next presume to shield his theories, no one can conjecture.

What consequences, however, must naturally result to himself, from measures like these, it needs no eye of prophecy to foresee a total prostration in the general respect; a fatal extinction in the minds of multitudes of confidence in his principles, as well as reliance on his judgment; and the final dispersion of all possibility, as well as hope, of future usefulness. And what conduct then it is toward him, that kindness to him and fidelity to God demand from his associates in the ministry, is equally clear-a frank and full expression of the disapprobation with which these expedients to sustain his doctrines are regarded, that shall startle him effectually from his dreams of safety, and extinguish the vain expectation of thus tampering with facts, and trifling with public sentiment, with impunity.

THE

CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR'S

REVIEW OF DR. WOODS' LETTERS.

THE reviewer, whom the reader will again recognise as the author of the Concio ad Clerum-or, as with characteristic delicacy he has thought proper in the discussion to denominate himself" the Dwight professor of theology in Yale College"-had scarcely, it seems, taken "leave of the treatise with mingled feelings of pleasure and regret ;— pleasure to find Dr. Bellamy meeting the enemies of divine sovereignty on that vantage ground, which we think ought never to be relinquished; and regret, that in any instance he should yield it to his opponents, and be thus driven to adopt a theory which made him inconsistent with himself;" before, from the reception of "a copy of Dr. Woods' Letters to Dr. Taylor on the same subject," he unexpectedly found the system-which he had just informed his readers, Dr. Bellamy had taught with so much "acuteness and force," as to "deserve the praise which our admiration confers on the highest intellectual attainments"-assailed by such a "pressure of new objections," as to force him not only, in some instances, to "found his answer on another

hypothesis," in order to accomplish "their most effectual refutation;" but sturdily to deny that he had himself ever expressed several of the positions which the theory involves, and vehemently to renew and repeat the protestation, that he had never undertaken to advance it in the form of "an affirmative proposition;" nor "meant to intimate that men can know enough on this subject to justify the positive affirmation" of it; nor even " given" a hint" "that a supposition of this kind is to be received as an article of faith, or is capable of direct proof.”

66

This zealous retraction of "the praise" which his “admiration" conferred on it at its promulgation, as freeing "the subject from distressing and groundless perplexity," and abatement of its claims to unhesitating acceptance, as presenting "as no other theory in the view of the writer does present, the moral government of God in its unimpaired perfection and glory, to deter from sin and allure to holiness his accountable subjects;" conjoined as they are with an instant and strenuous effort to vindicate it from objection and demonstrate its truth; "may," perhaps, "strike our readers as singular from a man" of his "acuteness and force of mind." To the uninitiated, particularly, it must naturally prove a matter of some difficulty to comprehend how one, endowed with so keen an eye as to see his theory written in the utmost clearness on every page of "the treatise," should be so utterly incompetent to discover any traces of an equally "positive affirmation" of it in his own discussions respecting it; and not less perplexing to understand how, if Dr. Bellamy deserves "the praise which our admiration confers on the highest intellectual attainments," for having taught it; the imputation of it to the reviewer by Dr. Woods, can involve so gross a disparagement as he represents, of his in